On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2016, at 11:17 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote
> :
>>> Having looked at this in more detail this isn’t as simple.
>>>
>>> The sticking point is the cleanup, which needs to be passed a single struct
>>> to do it’s work. To pass both the pfds and the npdfs these two need to be
>>> wrapped in a structure of some kind, which the user has to feed in from the
>>> outside common to both register and unregister. This structure probably
>>> should be an apr_array_header_t.
>>
>> Hmm right, either this or, say, the ending pfd is the one with
>> ->reqevents=0, or ->p=NULL, or probably better
>> ->desc_type=APR_NO_DESC.
>> Up to the caller to ensure this, it could possibly be documented.
>>
>>>
>>> Is it worth making the change from apr_pollfd_t **pfds to
>>> apr_array_header_t *pfds?
>>
>> That would still require some "complex" initialization, so I'd prefer
>> the above if it doesn't sound to hacky…
>
> I just gave it a try and it was a lot more elegant than I thought.
>
> You create an array the precise size you need, and off you go.
That's indeed elegant enough, but I think I prefer the plain array
solution, still :p
Don't you like?
{
apr_pollfd_t pfds[3];
/* or */
apr_pollfd_t *pfds = apr_pcalloc(p, 3 * apr_pollfd_t);
pfds[0].desc_type = APR_POLL_SOCKET;
pfds[0].desc.s = s0;
...
pfds[1].desc_type = APR_POLL_SOCKET;
pfds[1].desc.s = s1;
...
pfds[2].desc_type = APR_NO_DESC;
ap_mpm_register_poll_callback_timeout(pfds, pool, ...);
}
And the callbacks/cleanups could then loop with:
{
apr_pollfd_t *pfd;
for (pfd = pfds; pfd->desc_type != APR_NO_DESC; pfd++) {
...
}
}
Since APR_NO_DESC == 0, we could even omit it above (both for
initializing pfds[2] thanks to calloc, and for the != APR_NO_DESC in
the loop)...
No struct needed for cleanup_register() either, we can pass the pfds
(plain) array as is (terminated by .desc_type == APR_NO_DESC instead
of the NULL-pointer of your first/indirect version, we can likewise
require this from the user).
But, after all, I'm not really against using an apr_array either...
Regards,
Yann.
